cool skill said:
Right.
You cannot possibly answer that question because you already made the illogical conclusion that it is impossible. ...
not in that question; it is free of any presumptions. If you can provide me with an answer to the question as asked, then you will have shown it to be possible, and I will be tickled pink to be wrong.
There is no need for me to restate something that was already made clear....
If you want me to clarify it, state exactly how you came up with that interpretation.
By reading your posts and gathering what the premise of them all seemed to be.
That was apparently a poor method, so I am now attempting to restart my analysis. Going back to post 1 does not provide me with your first step, nor does reading any of the posts after that.
From what I can tell, you have never posted your first step; it was never made clear to me, at least. Instead of wasting bits by repeating your assertion that there is no need to re-state the first step, please post it now.
1. Injustice is inevitable.
2. Injustice plays a practical role in social function.
The first one is realistically impossible.
The second one is a contradiction.
What is so difficult?
Why is the first one realistically impossible? Please give less abstract explanations of your theories, and provide more real-world methodologies.
Why is the second one a contradiction?
To be clear, I'm not supporting either claim. I'm currently asking why you think those claims cannot be true, as you seem to be 100% sure in your reasoning.
Proof of what I see so far:
Assumption: Let’s assume that an All-pervasive Justice is possible.
1) By definition, for this all-pervasive individual justice to exist, no person's rights or freedoms can be limited in any way.
2) Therefore, everyone must be allowed to do whatever they want, including taking destructive actions, for example: burning their village's food supply.
Contradiction: If the freedom to destroy the village food supply must be protected, then a food supply must be available at all times for the person to burn. If, though the exercising of this freedom, all available food supply is destroyed, then the freedom to burn it is lost.
The exercising of this particular freedom can destroy its own availability, and as such, prevents the existence of an all-pervasive justice.
Also, because the execution of this freedom endangers the lives of those living in said village, it directly conflicts with the freedoms and rights of the villagers RE: life, safety, and accessibility to food.
Conclusion: Because there is a single example of a freedom causing injustice, an *all-pervasive* justice is not possible; some freedoms must be limited for the preservation of others, as proven by the above.
avatar: awwww, but I'm having fun!
BTW: I'm out of the area for the next 2 weeks. see you guys later!